Theological Cultural Analysis of the Free Software Movement

"Free software" is computer software for which the
source code (the original, human-readable form) is available under terms
which give you the "freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and
improve [it]."1 That is to say, "free software is a
matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think
of free as in free speech, not as in free beer."2 This essay
is a theological cultural analysis of the Free Software Movement, a group
which believes that software freedom is a moral issue.

This is in contrast to the alternative Open Source
Initiative, which also believes that software with these rights attached
is good, but for pragmatic reasons3 - by virtue of
the method of production, it has "better quality, higher reliability,
more flexibility, [and] lower cost."4 This difference
is one which splits the software authoring community.5

This essay will first attempt to describe and
understand the Movement on its own terms, and will then move on to
interpret it in light of the gospel and provide a theological critique.
In this, it follows Vanhoozer's analytical hermeneutic.6

The World Of The Text

Free software is usually developed in an open,
collaborative fashion and may involve individuals and companies from all
around the world. In 1984, Richard M. Stallman, "the prophet of the free
software movement,"7 started a project (GNU8) to produce a complete free operating
system. Such a system, under the name Linux or GNU/Linux,9 now exists and is used on millions of
computers worldwide. In 1985, Stallman created the Free Software
Foundation (FSF), a charity to promote and manage the development of free
software, and he remains the Movement's central figure and
philosopher.

The FSF publishes a definition of software freedom -
any software which is available with all the freedoms in the definition
is counted as free software.10 Stallman has
also written the most popular set of free software licensing terms, the
GNU General Public License (GPL),11 which covers
most GNU project software and nearly two thirds of all free
software.12 The GPL makes sure that, when you
receive software under it, you have all the necessary freedoms, and also
says that derivative works (modifications and improvements) you make and
distribute must also be under the GPL - in other words, you cannot take
away from others the freedoms you have.13 The opposite
of free software is proprietary software - software owned and controlled
by a single entity.

As noted above, Stallman and the FSF see software
freedom as an ethical issue. He characterises the question of whether to
use and develop proprietary software or to work against it as "a stark
moral choice,"14 and calls the proprietary software
social system "antisocial," "unethical," and "simply wrong."15 His rationale is his belief that
"the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with
other people who like it."16 But this is not just a personal
opinion - his view is that "all programmers [owe] an ethical obligation
to respect those freedoms for other people."17 He
summarises his motives thus: "My work on free software is motivated by an
idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage
free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids
cooperation, and thus make our society better."18 This
means that proprietary software is "a social problem."19

The World Behind The Text

The origins of the Free Software Movement are in
Stallman's experiences when working at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) in the 1970s. From the time general-purpose computers
were invented, the culture of the original software 'hackers'20 was one of sharing the software they
wrote. However, as new machines arrived in the early 1980s, their
software tended no longer to come with source code - and those who had
the code had signed non-disclosure agreements promising not to give
anyone a copy. So the ability for those at MIT to collaborate to improve
the software they used was lost.

Stallman's "stark moral choice" was either to accede
to this development and start a career as an author of proprietary
software "building walls to divide people," or to write free programs "to
make a community possible once again."21 And so he
began the work that continues to this day, although he himself spends
more time now travelling the world promoting the ideas of free
software.

The World In Front Of The Text

The vision that the Movement commends is one of a
world where all users have the benefits of freedom for all the software
they use. Stallman's essay "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" ends
like this:

You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people
who use software.

You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach
your students with it.

You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when
it breaks.

From these three points, we can extract three
ethical virtues that the movement espouses.

The first is sharing and mutual
help within a community. Earlier in the essay, he writes "above all
society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its
citizens."23Stallman
even extends this principle as far as breaking the law: "If your friend
asks to make a copy [of a piece of proprietary software you have], it
would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than
copyright."24

The second is that of self-improvement and
education. In this particular situation, this is of necessity restricted
to those who are able to read and understand the source code, although
there is an implication that this is a skill which should be more common
than it currently is. Elsewhere Stallman writes that "the free software
community rejects the 'priesthood of technology', which keeps the general
public in ignorance of how technology works."25

The third is that of autonomy -
one should not need to seek permission to make one's own life better. For
example, if software is to be adjudged free, there can be no restrictions
on the uses to which it may be put.26But
personal autonomy is not an utterabsolute; Stallman's licence, the GPL, does restrict your
freedom of action in that youmay
not act in ways which reduce the freedom of
others.27This is
an idea taken from libertarianism.28One
might also say it works to maximise the amount of
individualautonomy when considering
society as a group - a utilitarian view.29But
sharing is not forced - the Free Software Movement believes in the right
to make private modifications to free software and not share them with
anyone.30So this
is not communism.

On what basis are these ethical
principles defined? For Stallman, conscience and reason are the ultimate
moral authority. He writes that "the ultimate basis of my ethical views
is simply what my conscience says about certain cases. I start with those
feelings and try to generalize them using induction. I don't have a list
of ethical axioms, and never did."31

In The Light Of The Gospel

The history that Stallman tells of the genesis of the
Free Software Movement can easily be cast in Creation/Fall/Redemption
terms.32 Originally, the software ecosystem
was created free, and users had freedom. Then, the advent of proprietary
software took that away (a "fall"), and ever since he and the FSF have
been working to redeem the world from social division and restore sharing
and cooperation to society.

Insofar as this is used as an ethical
foundation, supplanting the true Creation and Fall, it must be recognised
as a false story of origins. But what signs of the true Creation and Fall
can we see in the Movement, and the three ethical virtues noted
above?

The first is sharing and mutual
help within a community, the desire for which was theoriginal trigger. Stallman himself, although an
atheist,33perceives the similarity with Christian social ethics. He
suggests that Christianity "require[s] the freedom to share software. How
could you 'love thy neighbor as thyself' while signing a
contract34not to
share something useful with that neighbor?"35

The Bible does have things to say about how we should
share our possessions with others. However, before rushing to apply these
to software, we need to consider whether software and other information
should rightly be considered as property. Software is unique among human
cultural creations in that it combines the two attributes of function (it
does something) and zero-cost copyability.36 If one
person has useful software to perform a task, and shares it with another,
they can also perform the same task at the same time without depriving
the sharer. Sharing software is not a zero-sum game. In economic terms,
software is a non-rivalrous good.37

So when we look at e.g. 2
Corinthians 8:8-15,38which
extracts principles of mutual help based on the assumption of a zero-sum
exchange,39how do
we apply it? The answerisn't
totally clear but if the principle is "that there should be equality"
(verse 13), thiscould be seen as an
argument for sharing your software with everyone
equally.

Of course, if the desire to help your
neighbour is backed by a humanistic idea of shared social progress as an
ultimate goal, that would be idolatrous. A Christian would also want to
disagree with the idea that the imperative to share software is more
important than our responsibility to obey the governing
authorities.40

The second ethical virtue is self-improvement
and education. Historically, Christian involvement in education has been
extensive, seeing it as "the nurture and development of man for his
proper end."41 Education into a skill such as
software authorship is only a small part of that, but it is a part. So,
going that far, this virtue is an echo of Creation. If it crosses the
line into an Enlightenment-style view of education as the saviour of
mankind, it would be a sign of the Fall.

The third virtue is autonomy -
freedom from control by the author of the software. One's view of this
depends on whether one feels that the software author's authority is
righteous or not. It should be noted that the idea that the author of a
cultural work has authority over how the work can be used and copied is a
relatively recent one. Such a principle did not enter English law until
the Statute of Anne in 1709, and even then it was "for the Encouragement
of Learning," not because of some natural (or, as far as I can see,
Biblical) authorial right.42

A Christian Response

So how should Christians, as gospel-shaped people,
react to free software, over and above a dispassionate evaluation of its
relative technical and functional merits? There are three major and
several minor arguments in favour of a positive attitude, but also some
caveats which need to be heeded.

The first major argument is the increased ability to
help your neighbour, as discussed above. Using free software puts you in
a better position to do this. One
aspect of loving your neighbour is meeting his needs.43 If you own a copy of BibleWorks
(which is proprietary software) and another Christian who would benefit
from it asks you for a copy, you are in a moral dilemma. You are
physically able to help them, but the agreement you signed with the
authors prevents you.

Writing free software puts you in an even better
position; you are able to create something which, for the same amount of
effort, can be useful to one person or a million people. The One Laptop
Per Child ("$100 Laptop") project aims to address global educational
inequality; its aims are significantly advanced by its use of free
software.44

A second argument for producing free software could be
made based on God's glory. If Christians produce widely-used free
software, and make it clear that they are doing it (as they do all
things) to the glory of God,45 is God not
more glorified than if only a few people know of their work?

The third, related argument is that from the Cultural
Mandate.46 Christians are commanded to "fill
the earth and subdue it," which has been interpreted more widely as a
command to create culture.47 So it's good to write high
quality software, full stop. But if a Christian produces quality software
and makes it free software, it can be built upon by others, and greater
things can be created. So making your software free better fulfils the
Cultural Mandate than keeping it proprietary.

Other arguments for a positive attitude:

Stewardship - using zero-cost software is good
stewardship; proprietary software can be extremely expensive.

Small government - copyright is not a natural
right, but an artificial government-imposed monopoly on copying.
Christians who are sceptical of over-reaching government interference
may wish to choose software which neuters the copyright monopoly.

Removing temptation - proprietary software comes
with restrictions on copying, and also sometimes restrictions on use,
which Christians might be tempted to break. Also, most people click
"Accept" to long and complex EULAs without reading them, which is
arguably not letting your Yes be Yes.48

On the negative side, Christians must avoid any
idolatries which can easily come attached to the principles of free
software. We must avoid elevating the principle of sharing into an
idolization of human social progress, the rightness of self-improvement
into an idolization of education, or the usefulness of autonomy into an
idolization of freedom. And we must respect the command to obey the
governing authorities in respect of not making copies of proprietary
software.

So what of the ethical stance of the Free
Software Movement? Their position can be split into two points - that
making and using free software is an affirmative ethical duty, and that
making and using proprietary software is a negative ethical
duty.49

For a Christian, negative
ethical duties (those things God forbids us from doing) are clearly
defined by Scripture, and I see no Scriptural basis for declaring that
making and using proprietary software is in this category. A
free-software-using friend tells of a time when he was creating an
evangelistic leaflet. He was unable to get it to print using free
software, so he used some proprietary software to achieve his
goal.50Was this
sinful? If Scripture is silent on the question, the answer must be no -
there are no things that God forbids us to do that he has not told us
about.51And if
using proprietary software on some occasions is not sinful, then
producing it must also be not sinful.

So we cannot go as far as the Free Software Movement
and say that proprietary software is ethically bad. But if we have all
the caveats in place then, for the reasons given above, free software is
a positive social good and, as such, Christians should be encouraged to
produce, use and share it.

Bibliography

"An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting
the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies,
during the Times therein mentioned." No pages. Cited 1 January 2008.
http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html.

3 It is somewhat unusual to
have two movements having very different ends but the same means.
Political movements normally fracture for precisely the opposite reason
- they have the same ends, but disagree on the correct means to use to
achieve the end.

5 "The [creators of the Open
Source Initiative] decided it was time to dump the moralizing and
confrontational attitude that had been associated with 'free software'
in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic,
business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape [to release the
source code to its web browser]." Michael Tiemann, "History of the
OSI," n.p. [cited 15 December 2007]. Online:
http://www.opensource.org/history.

8 GNU is a recursive acronym
standing for "GNU's Not Unix." Unix is an existing family of operating
systems with which GNU is compatible.

9 There is a controversy
within the community, related to the giving of appropriate credit, as
to what the system should be called. This essay refers to it as Linux
for brevity.

10 "Free software ...
refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

The freedom to run
the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

The freedom to study
how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The freedom to
redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom
2).

The freedom to
improve the program, and release your improvements to the public,
so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the
source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free
software if users have all of these freedoms." Stallman, "The
Free Software Definition," n.p.

11 Free Software
Foundation, Inc., "GNU General Public License version 3," n.p. [cited
15 December 2007]. Online: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html. Note
that the American spelling for the noun, "license," differs from
the English "licence."

12 64.14%, according to
"freshmeat.net: Statistics and Top 20," n.p. [cited 15 December 2007].
Online: http://freshmeat.net/stats/#license. freshmeat.net is a website
which tracks and announces new releases of (at the time of writing)
more than 40,000 free software projects.

13 This additional
restriction on the licensing of derivative works, which is not required
for software to be free, is called "copyleft." This is because it
builds upon but stands in contrast to copyright - copyright takes away
your rights to share and change, while copyleft actively preserves
them.

20 Although the word "hacker" today can mean
"computer criminal," most of the software community continue to use it
in its original sense: "A person who enjoys exploring the details of
programmable systems and how to stretch their capabilities, as opposed
to most users, who prefer to learn only the minimum necessary." Eric S.
Raymond et al., "Hacker," The Jargon File 4.7.7, n.p. [cited 15
December 2007]. Online:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/hacker.html.

26 "The freedom to run the
program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use
it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and
purpose." Stallman, "The Free Software Definition,"
n.p.

27 "To protect your
rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or
asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain
responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you
modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others." "GNU
General Public License version 3," n.p.

28 "The libertarian will
emphasize the absolute value of human freedom, so that any act or
lifestyle is permissible as long as it does not compromise the freedom
of another person or actually harm them." Peter Jensen, At the Heart
of the Universe (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 49-50.

29 "The utilitarian will
emphasize the greatest happiness of the greatest number." Jensen, At
the Heart of the Universe, 49.

30 "You should also have
the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own
work or play, without even mentioning that they exist." Stallman,
"The Free Software Definition," n.p.

32 As others have noticed:
"It's diagnostic that Richard can no longer recall with certainty the
year or the other person involved in [a key] incident that set him on
the path to 'free software'. Once the story had been absorbed into
Richard's personal narrative of prophecy, struggle, and mission, the
actual time and circumstances of the story became unimportant to him
and forgettable." Eric S. Raymond, "A Fan of Freedom," n.p. [cited 19
December 2007]. Online: http://catb.org/~esr/writings/rms-bio.html.

33 "As an Atheist, I don't
follow any religious leaders, but I sometimes find I admire something
one of them has said." Stallman, "The GNU Project," n.p.

34 By "a contract," he means the End User Licence
Agreements (EULAs) which accompany proprietary software, to which you
have to agree in order to use it. Such agreements contain clauses
forbidding you from copying ("sharing") the software.

36 This can be contrasted
with e.g. a car or some food, which has function but not zero-cost
copyability (if I give my car to you, I no longer have it) and e.g. a
novel, which (in electronic form) has zero-cost copyability but no
significant function.

37 A rival or rivalrous
good is one whose consumption by one person prevents its consumption by
another person. Most goods (e.g. an apple, a hammer) are rivalrous.
Non-rivalrous goods (e.g. a scenic view, the common cold, software) may
be consumed simultaneously by any number of people. "Rivalry
(economics)," n.p. [cited 6 January 2008]. Online:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_%28economics%29

38Bible
quotations in this essay are fromEnglish Standard
Version (London: Collins, 2002). The ESV usage terms require:
"Scripture quotations are from the Holy Bible, English Standard
Version, published by Harper Collins Publishers (C) 2001 by Crossway
Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All
rights reserved."

39 "Our desire is not that others might be
relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality.
At the present time your plenty will supply what they need, so that in
turn their plenty will supply what you need." 2 Corinthians
8:13-14.

40 Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to
the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God,
and those that exist have been instituted by God."

42 "An Act for the
Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in
the Authors or Purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein
mentioned," n.p. [cited 1 January 2008]. Online:
http://www.copyrighthistory.com/anne.html.

43 James 2:15-16: "If a brother or sister is
poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them,
'Go in peace, be warmed and filled,' without giving them the things
needed for the body, what good is that?"

44 "The Laptop will bring
children technology as means to freedom and empowerment. The success of
the project in the face of overwhelming global diversity will only be
possible by embracing openness and by providing the laptop's users and
developers a profound level of freedom." Benjamin Mako Hill, "OLPC on
free/open source software," n.p. [Cited 1 January 2008]. Online:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/OLPC_on_open_source_software.

45 1 Corinthians 10:31:
"So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory
of God."

46 Genesis 1:28: "And God
said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth
and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the
birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the
earth.' "

47"In
Genesis, God gives what we might call the first job description: 'Be
fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.' The first
phrase, 'be fruitful and multiply' means to develop the social world:
build families, churches, schools, cities, governments, laws. The
second phrase, 'subdue the earth,' means to harness the natural world:
plant crops, build bridges, design computers, compose music. This
passage is sometimes called the Cultural Mandate because it tells us
that our original purpose was to create cultures, build civilizations -
nothing less." Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway Books, 2005).

48 Matthew 5:37: "Let what
you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than
this comes from evil." I am grateful to Robert O'Callahan for this
point.

49 "The distinction
between affirmative and negative duties is [that] ... the latter are
all simultaneously binding on us at all times. It is possible to obey
'do not murder' and 'do not commit adultery' and 'do not have any gods
before the Lord' all at the same time. The former need to be ordered
and chosen between because it is not possible at one and the same time
to 'visit the prisoner', 'evangelize the unreached', 'spend time with
your family' and so on. For a given moment you need to choose which
affirmative duty is binding upon you." David P. Field, personal email
communication.